- Most images will have an intermediate preview (probably in a pop-up
lightbox). From here we can provide a link to *both* the Commons and Wikipedia pages for an image. What do you think?
I don't think this is a good idea. I assume he said it thinking on "articles linking here", a link to CheckUsage would be ok, but to wikipedia... 1-Which wikipedia? 2-Why wikipedia and not Wiktionary or Wikibooks?
If that wikipedia has extra information about the image (not a transcluded commons image & description), it's a local upload, so either: a) The image is free and should be uploaded to commons. b) The image is fair use. No good for a copyleft search engine.
That if you upload to commons (not local upload), your image will also be on the image search engine, can also encourage some people for the free licenses instead of the -nc, etc.
I have nothing against using wikipedia usage for gaining image information, though.
A suggestion for them: What about making available a search from image-hash (eg md5, sha1...) to allow a backwards search? (Where did this free imjage came from?)
It is nice seeing this copyleft search engines :-)